get_tweet_thread

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, confirming no destructive behavior. The description adds context about resolving a 'linear self-thread', clarifying that only the author's own tweets in the thread are returned. It does not mention limitations or edge cases, but the purpose is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action and parameter. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., does it return the full thread text or just IDs?) which could be helpful but is not critical given the simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Numeric tweet ID'. The description adds value by stating it 'Can be the root tweet or any tweet in the thread', which clarifies acceptable input beyond the schema's short description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Resolve a linear self-thread from any tweet in the thread' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves a thread of tweets by the same author. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tweet_detail or get_tweet_replies by focusing on the self-thread.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a tweet ID from a thread and want the whole thread, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_tweet_replies for non-self replies or get_tweet_detail for a single tweet. No exclusions or context are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.